<p>Too true. The only problem I have with holding people to the same standards, as mifune proposes, is that not everyone actually starts off at the same place. So, to judge people on the same basis is completely unfair and not as equitable as one would pretend it to be. Undoubtedly, race is one of those measures of where one has started. I can get into this, but I don’t have the time right now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You bring up great questions, I think, and summarize the three counter arguments for AA pretty well. Because the other two have been discussed already, I want to address this one in particular.</p>
<p>I take issue with the assumption that “beneficiaries” of AA don’t have to work hard or attain the “same standards as their fellow students.” For one, the idea that those standards SHOULD be the ones that they need to work towards is questionable. Second of all, and more importantly, the assumption is that students of color can get by simply based on their race. THIS IS NOT THE CASE! They need to work hard as well. Race alone will not get you in anywhere. You MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST have more than race to present. Now, this might not necessarily be quantitative (i.e. scores, GPA) but experiences or extracurricular involvement or w/e. Now, many non-URMs are also held to this same standard (i.e. athletes, etc.) My point is, no URM can nor will get complacent with “low standards.” That is a pretty offensive assumption.</p>
<p>Of course Affirmative Action isn’t an acceptable vehicle for eventual equality. If we really wanted to eliminate disparities between minorities and the general population, we would pour more resources into majority-minority school districts. But suggesting such a thing is politically infeasible because:</p>
<ol>
<li>A lot of people are simply against minorities as a whole getting a larger stake in society.</li>
<li>A lot of people would think that such a program would be even more unfair than Affirmative Action</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the absence of Affirmative Action, minorities that actively struggled against institutional racism and won were still considered below average despite all evidence of the contrary. Ask any retired black professional about their experiences prior to the 1960’s. I can assure you that they received treatment as bad, or worse than professionals today and for the same reason: because people believed that a black professional couldn’t possibly be as good as a white one. The idea that the white option is always better precedes Affirmative Action by at least a century. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think so.</p>
<p>The few positions affected by Affirmative Action are very competitive (if this weren’t true, there would be no complaints about Affirmative Action). Thus the applicants in question, even the ones that can benefit from Affirmative Action must be competitive. If they are competitive, it stands to reason that they have been doing everything in their power to get whatever they happen to be after - just like everyone else. There’s rarely just one minority applying for any given position. Even if the minority knows that he has an advantage, he realizes that the doesn’t have an advantage over other minorities.</p>
<p>And because your other points I think do deserve discussion:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the second one, I think that this animosity is not created by the policy but by the people themselves. Now, you can argue that it is caused by the policy and therefore amounts to the same thing. But, I disagree. The policy is not the issue, but rather how some perceive it. They misconstrue the purpose of it and use their frustration with it to fuel their animosity towards other races. As I have pointed out, do not blame AA for your animosity towards other races who might “benefit” from AA, but blame yourselves for it.</p>
<p>As to the first point, I think that you cannot create equality in a place with such a charged history, like that of the U.S.'s, without what you call “inequality.” In order for people previously denied opportunities to receive them, those who would have otherwise received them need to be denied them. You cannot hold people who have been systematically denied and opportunities to the same standards as the general population who might have received them. They will never get anywhere. Is this appropriate? I say, there is no other way.</p>
<p>I don’t think I would go this far. Your assertion is so blanket that I’ll just counter with a brief anecdote:</p>
<p>I’m a member of an under-represented minority group (one that benefits from affirmative action). I’m a high school junior, and I have an excellent chance of being accepted to any college I want to go to next year. Unlike many applicants from over-represented groups, I don’t feel the extrinsic need to study to earn ultra-high SAT scores, take tons of AP’s, and earn the highest grades in my class.</p>
<p>But I’m internally driven, so I strive toward these things anyways. I don’t think, however, that this motivation is universal, and so the issue of complacent satisfaction with affirmative action may have some influence.</p>
<p>It doesn’t have enough influence, though, to justifiably warrant a switch in anyone’s position on affirmative action (as I see it at least).</p>
<p>“I’m a high school junior, and I have an excellent chance of being accepted to any college I want to go to next year. Unlike many applicants from over-represented groups, I don’t feel the extrinsic need to study to earn ultra-high SAT scores, take tons of AP’s, and earn the highest grades in my class.”</p>
<p>I appreciate this viewpoint silverturtle, in part, because I believe it is relatively rare. By that I mean, I wonder if many CC posters would be surprised about how little the average high school student, and perhaps high school urms in particular, even THINK about applying to elite schools. I believe it’s just not important to a lot of folks, and I think that is relevant to this discussion. Is applying to elite schools the best measure of “motivation”? Although I am a second generation URM, until I came to college confidential ( because my H thought my D should prepare for the SAT… WHAT??), I had NO idea! What are the implications of that?</p>
<p>^ My point is that such an assumption won’t get anyone anywhere substantial. Okay, as a URM you might have a good chance of getting anywhere - but you don’t actually know that. So you don’t feel the need to study to earn ultra-high SAT scores or the need to take tons of AP? That’s great. Neither did I. Neither did many, many white students as well. The point is you don’t need ultra-high SAT scores to get in, as represented by the fact that those with ultra-high scores don’t always get in and those with high scores (yes, BOTH minorities and not) do get in. This idea that ultra-high is what is needed to get in is problematic. </p>
<p>However, those who lack motivation aren’t going to get anywhere because where they will not show motivation, you will. So even then you are more appealing as a motivated URM than they. Thus, motivation and some sort of success is necessary to even give you a chance to get in anywhere. Complacency with what you have attained is okay, if what you have obtained is competitive.</p>
<p>For example, I thought that what I had to offer to Yale was competitive and therefore felt no need to try and retake my SATs to get a 2400.</p>
<p>Actually I got close to taking three sciences. I took Bio, Chem, Calculus, International Relations, and a Chem Lab. So far I have only one B, in calculus.</p>
<p>I am so ****ed that it is taking this long to get our grades. What are these professors doing, they need to arrest their lives so they can post our grades NOW!</p>
<p>P.S. LOL it is so weird that you are calling me Dbate, when we know each other in real life. :)</p>
<p>^ Haha, I know. I sometimes start writing your name and then realize I can’t say that on here… I think I’ll just start calling you Dbate in real life too, lol.</p>
<p>Yeah to be honest throughout high school I was dead set on going to our state school UT until my biology teacher told me at the end of junior year that I should aim higher. LOL, I love that woman :)</p>
<p>Good for beer! We were all about the UC’s until my D started getting letters.It’s not like she was sitting around, resting on her URM status. She did her thing because that’s who she is. None of us thought about elite schools, nor the idea of URM.</p>
<p>Fair enough. I was just saying, based on non-admissions essays that I’ve read, the writing quality of many students here is not as good as I’d imagined it would be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just think the level of differentiation is not as dramatic as it seems in all cases, and many people are reacting to the seemingly indiscriminate application of the admissions boost which includes those applicants who either don’t need it or are not adding anything especially ‘unique’ to the class.</p>
<p>Well, I certainly didn’t work any less hard because I’m black. I worked my ass off, and not even to get into a top school - pretty much just doing what I wanted to do, working for merit money, and paying the bills. I did have one friend who said that I had “no reaches” because of my demographic (high-achieving low-income first generation URM), and while I disagree with her, I think that I would have been easily as successful had I been a high-achieving, low-income, first generation white or ORM student. And frankly, had I been an ORM or white student, no one would have questioned how I got into Stanford.</p>
<p>You can’t, because I hold no racist sentiments unlike those who support policies that implicitly authorize racism. Those who continually expound arguments that provide logical and substantiated reasoning for the equitable treatment of individuals are not racists. </p>
<p>You cannot displace any rhetoric to “reveal any racism” because I do not hold any by adamantly arguing for the equitable treatment of all individuals in judgments originally rooted in contests based on merit, not race. Your goal, NearL, to see the preferential treatment of certain races over the other is no different from the goals of some of the world’s most ruthless dictators. Hitler sought to promote the superiority of the Aryan race by making up for past grievances committed by the Jews. In your scenario, this is a direct reflection of your ultimate goal to see the ethnic minorities rise to the epitome of education at the expense of other ethnic groups. You support racism by supporting a policy that promotes the superiority over one race by providing advantages in the college admission process.</p>
<p>As I stated previously, I have spent one-third of my life outside the United States and am thus acquainted with whatever new acquisitions one attains from living in different atmospheres. Further, since I currently live in a low-income household where bills and groceries consume the entire month’s profits, I am initiated in the ways in which economic status works to limit one’s everyday circumstances. However, I am of Caucasian descent and am thus not entitled to the same advantages that are bestowed upon minority applicants regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds. How are my personal struggles any less legitimate because of the color of my skin?</p>
<p>Once again, I will assert that socioeconomic status is a far better indicator of one’s obstacles since it quantifies one’s resources and induces barriers more readily than skin color. The combination of one’s family income and assets is a causation toward a disadvantageous background whereas skin color may only correlate to unfavorable circumstances. Also, AA advocates generalize the extent to which those of color suffer from prejudice. It’s the most subjective interpretation possible that all minority students suffer chronic racial repercussion based on previous social injustices. Many black, Hispanic, and Native American families are particularly living healthy, prosperous lifestyles and still receive continuing benefits in competitive processes. Whereas those of majority groups fraught with the plights of destitution and discomfort receive absolutely nothing. My indication of this current injustice is not self-serving my “white interests” or whatever NearL may believe. In fact, it disproportionately affects minority groups and places limitations on the degree of their own social mobility. These are cases that deserve the degree of social catalysis that AA provides, but not to the extent that a disadvantaged background automatically grants unjustified acceptance. Thus, those who suffer most from current AA policy are the underprivileged from majority groups who receive none of the benefits that socioeconomically advantaged minority groups obtain. </p>
<p>To summarize, socioeconomic status offers an logically rigorous and ethically proper basis for which achievement is based on tangible circumstances and not a pre-established rubric of opportunity based solely on ethnically-driven stereotypes that establish nothing but a subjective assumption of one’s availability of opportunity. </p>
<p>NearL, do you honestly believe that every single living minority has a life that is more painful to live than that of a white or Asian student and that no disadvantaged white or Asian deserves AA benefits to counteract everyday obstacles?</p>
<p>You also argue that minorities are continually immersed in the transgressions of the previous eras. If so, in today’s more liberalized society, it is largely socioeconomic in nature. Thus, socioeconomic status should be considered, not ethnicity, which does not automatically confer deprivation.</p>
<p>The arguments that favor the privileged treatment of minorities have not been cited because there is no statistical proof that shows benefits without uncovering a systematic prejudicial practice. For instance, NearL claims that whites actually benefit from the policies of AA yet he cannot substantiate this. Dbate and NearL claim that athletic recruitment predominantly benefits white applicants. Although athletics is irrelevant to education, it does recognize legitimate talent. A complexion that does not resemble white or Asian descent, however, is not a talent in itself. Moreover, athletes from majority groups are not confronted with the same suspicions and doubts of their own merit because one cannot immediately label an athletic recruit as easily as a racial recruit. </p>
<p>Any individual that argues that whites and Asians do not enter college with significantly more impressive academic, personal, and contributory merits faces an overwhelmingly large amount of statistics that is too overwhelming to refute. This is not a racist remark but rather factual. I will reiterate that diversity-based (ethnically-based) admits serve to devalue their accomplishments and institute the glass ceiling that current AA policy creates. I would personally support a decrease in diversity if all minorities would be freed from perpetual internal or external misgivings over their acceptance into elite institutions and positions. Further, by choosing to institute a lower standard, it deprives our nation of talent needed to succeed as a world power by instituting policies that cater to lower qualification and undermine the characteristic American work ethic. </p>
<p>The very act of creating a racially-based standard is racist in nature since enhancing one group’s advantages at the expense of another ** fits the very definition of racism. ** Socioeconomic status contributes more to social obstacles since it is a quantitative/objective measure of one’s resources; thus, those who benefit least from current AA policy are the lower-income Caucasians and Asians. In contrast to minority students who in the upper socioeconomic echelons, those from the lower-income majority suffer most. Thus, the alarming hypocrisy implicit in such a policy is beyond the scope of what is readily explainable. Anyone who supports the preferential treatment of privileged groups at the expense of the downtrodden clearly lacks all trace of virtue or understanding of the social objectives of AA.</p>